Time the PM advised the ambassador on protocol

Page Tools

The US ambassador, Tom Schieffer, still doesn't get it ("US envoy ends big chill with Latham", Herald, July 14). He was wrong to criticise Mark Latham's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq, because that constituted interference in Australian domestic politics. He is just as wrong to comment positively on the policy announced by Mr Latham yesterday, and the appointment of Kim Beazley.

Imagine, for example, what the outcry would be if our ambassador in Washington were to publicly support John Kerry in the US presidential election.

What a pity we have a Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, who also doesn't understand his duty, which is to tell Mr Schieffer to desist.

Colin Simpson, Little Hartley, July 14.

Tom Schieffer's vociferous entry into our political scene is unwelcome and most inappropriate. Would Mr Howard now please do his job and advise Mr Schieffer accordingly.

Charles Pace, Randwick, July 14.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

The best single reason to believe our Government sees itself as a puppet regime is its continuing failure to get the US ambassador to Canberra to shut up about our domestic politics. Any Australian government has the right to call in any foreign ambassador to tell him to stop mucking about in our domestic politics. If the ambassador doesn't heed such a warning, our government can send him home.

The failure of the Howard Government to do this with the chatty and intrusive Mr Schieffer shames them, embarrasses us, and, I suspect, usually helps the ALP.

Paul Lynch, Katoomba, July 14.

What an exquisite political boxing match this is: no sooner does John Howard think he's got Mark Latham and the Labor Party on the ropes than Mr Latham lets fly with a left-of-field broadside that again leaves the Liberal-National Party Coalition stung and stunned. In garnering US approval for his latest policy on Iraq, Mr Latham has effectively made the US anticipate publicly the reality of a Labor win at the next election.

Moreover, he has neutralised the allegations made by the US that a Labor-led Australia would be a "catastrophe", and at the same time silenced pro-US critics of his plan to withdraw troops by Christmas. Brilliant.

Fred Jansohn, Rose Bay, July 14.

A nice piece of manipulation by the US Administration. Come out swinging hard against Labor's policy on Iraq and after a minor concession start patting them on the head and saying, "Good boy".

This keeps a possible Labor government on the back foot in all future dealings with Washington. As if it had any business messing in Australian politics in the first place.

Jeremy Adair, Randwick, July 14.

Now that the US ambassador has said something good about Labor, will we get the usual howls of protest from former prime ministers and other lefties about interference in Australian politics, or is it OK this time because it favours the left?

John Way, Burraneer Bay, July 14.

I was glad to see that Mark Latham had not reprimanded the US ambassador for interfering in Australian politics, after the ambassador congratulated Mr Latham on his speech.

Leslie Rosen, Woollahra, July 14.

What if Mr Latham wins? As the US starts to cosy up to the ALP leader, John Howard might like to reflect that the US always, but always, acts in its own best interests.

John Christie, Oatley, July 14.

The US has had its Senate inquiry, Britain has had its Butler report. Where is Australia's top level inquiry about our intelligence failures?

D.Hurst, Lindfield, July 14.

International borders must be respected. As such, the response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was as commendable as the current invasion of Iraq is lamentable. It demonstrates why the concept of a pre-emptive strike should be buried for another generation.

If Mr Bush were president during the Cuban missile crisis, would he have acted pre-emptively? Unfortunately, I think he may have.

Kevin Hickey, Lake Munmorah, July 14.

Beware the devil in the detail of the visa turnaround

Not so, Betty Stroud (Letters, July 14). Those refugees on temporary protection visas will not "be allowed to stay permanently in Australia". As always, the devil is in the detail. With their carefully constructed obfuscatory rhetoric Government spin-meisters have obscured the fact that refugees on TPVs will now merely be permitted to apply for permanent residency under a wider range of categories than previously - categories for which most will not qualify.

Wendy Michaels, Northbridge, July 14.

How wonderful to know that since the last election we have become a more compassionate nation. Before the last election, Mr Howard whipped up the fear of asylum seekers.

Now his Government is trying to win votes by taking children out of detention, recognising after many years that most asylum seekers are genuine refugees, and offering permanent asylum. But let us not forget their suffering between election campaigns.

Lee Duncan, The Channon, July 14.

Call me a cynic, but I will not be rejoicing the supposed Government immigration policy backflip until I have read the small print.

Joanne Karcz, Chatswood, July 13.

After years of frustration and uncertainty, at last the people smugglers have an established time frame to offer their clients - August 29, 2001 (Tampa) to July 13, 2004 (permanent visa offer) is just a bit short of three years - the time it takes a Coalition government to lose its nerve.

For a future Labor government, the lead time will be a lot less than this. Either way, for those unable to migrate to Australia through ordinary migration processes, the $12,000 people smuggling fee must now loom as a very attractive option.

How long before the next wave of boat people begins?

Malcolm Mackellar, Kariong, July 14.

More thinking needed on China/Taiwan policy

Hamish McDonald's article on China and Taiwan ("Flashpoint for a war", Herald, July 14) illustrates how complex management of foreign policy in our region is becoming, a trend which will intensify.

China is becoming one of the great super economies of the world (so is India, which we continue to largely neglect). Regional nations will more markedly realign their foreign policy interests as China develops a dominant and, I think, largely benign regional role, preoccupied as it will be with its flourishing trade and investment interests, domestic development and holding its empire together.

There is, however, the complicating nature of Taiwan. Do we develop policies according to our best national interests or do we let the US do that thinking for us? In particular, has our Government required safeguards regarding the newly announced joint military bases/facilities with the US which allow us to determine, at crucial times, how they're used rather than automatically being readied/used for some sort of US action directed at China and which, sensibly in our national interests, we should not be party to?

Bill Hayden, Brisbane, July 14.

A long and costly delay

Dear Mr Westpac: You know how thrilled I was when your business banking person said I had $40,000 of unused credit and how sick I felt when, the next day, you said it was a mistake. You said you wouldn't blame me if I removed my account.

Then on July 1 I paid my staff electronically. On July 6 one employee said she hadn't been paid. The money left my account on July 1 and you promised to put a trace on it (at $1 a minute) to see where you sent it. Today is July 14 and still no answer.

Mr Westpac, I belong to an ethics committee where neglect of people and careless behaviour are held accountable. Why do you not have one?

S.Crawford, Chatswood, July 14.

Lure of tobacco tax

Ross Gittins's paean for prevention in health ("Prevention - it's a no brainer", Herald, July 14) noted that the success of tobacco control was a no brainer.

The 2001 Returns on Investment in Public Health report concluded that in 1998 alone, 17,421 deaths were averted because of tobacco control and while just $176 million had been spent on it between 1970 and 1998, the net benefits accruing were valued at $8.427 billion.

The Federal Government rakes in some $5.4 billion each year from tobacco tax. This year the federal budget allocated a derisory $2.2 million to the area. Tobacco excise is not an economic benefit, but merely a transfer of money from consumers to the Treasury.

Does one have to be cynical to conclude that, on these figures, the Howard Government is as addicted to tobacco money as smokers are to tobacco? Its myopia is truly depressing.

Professor Simon Chapman, University of Sydney, Camperdown, July 14.

One bridge too far

With regard to your article ("Oh, that bridge: landmark waiting for recognition", Herald, July 13), we can only hope federal legal protection extends to heritage icons outside Sydney.

The RTA is threatening to build a concrete bridge beside our beautiful, two-storey, more than 70 years old, sandstone and iron, heritage-listed bridge here in Grafton and then adjust the existing bridge to remove its glorious bends.

If this was Sydney, there is no way something of this sort would be allowed anywhere near the Harbour Bridge.

Clemency Purvis, South Grafton, July 13.

PBS scheme is at risk

For Australians concerned about the effect of the US trade agreement on our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, an article in The New York Times of July 12 should be required reading [see opposite page]. Among some of its most enlightening statement are: "The agreement, negotiated with Australia by the Bush Administration, would allow pharmaceutical companies to prevent import of drugs to the United States and also to challenge decisions by Australia about what drugs should be covered by the country's health plan, the prices paid for them and how they can be used.

"It represents the Administration's model for strengthening the protection of expensive brand-name drugs in wealthy countries, where the biggest profits can be made."

This does not sound like an agreement that represents the best interest and protection for Australians. In fact, it is not. It gives power to drug companies that have been frustrated and rebutted by the PBS to control the type and cost of drugs to the Australian consumer.

Pam Pitham, Glendale, July 14.

Key is more health staff

I was interested to read Professor John Dwyer's article ("Community care can take the heat off hospitals", Herald, July 13). I attended the workshop referred to by him. I left in frustration and disgust after morning tea.

All of the speakers were from New Zealand and most of the audience were state government employees who appeared to enthusiastically embrace the concept of fundholding for GP services, which for them meant increased power (with increased salaries). For GPs, it would mean being on a wage and the end of fee-for-service medicine.

The mixture of government employees and presenters from New Zealand - a country with two levels of government rather than three like Australia - can only result in muddled and ill-considered outcomes.

Why doesn't Professor Dwyer direct his energies towards seeking answers from the NSW Health Minister as to why this state doesn't have sufficient allied health-care workers to allow GPs and other health-care workers to safely care for the chronically ill and frail elderly in their homes?

Is the minister, through Professor Dwyer, admitting defeat in the health-care scenario or is the minister dipping his toe in the water via Professor Dwyer and covertly suggesting that the delivery of hospital care in Australia be handed to the Federal Government?

Let's concentrate on fixing the health-care crisis before we start dabbling in a British-style national health service which, say the British, is a disaster.

Dr John Gullotta, President AMA (NSW), St Leonards, July 14.

Year off might have been a factor, Warney

Shane Warne wasn't too generous towards Murali, suggesting that Murali took easy wickets on made-to-order tracks ("Warne now first among equals", Herald, July 14). He could have added: "But then, I would have held the record outright, had I not been banned for a year for being a drug cheat."

Jon Edmondson-Jones, Camperdown, July 14.

Onya, Warney, the equal world record for wickets and not a doosra bowled for any of them. How many would Murali have if those now judged illegal were deducted?

Test the bench pressers

We regularly see the uncanny ability of even the most sedentary of politicians to perform back flips. Should we be looking at introducing random drug testing inside Parliament House?

Sandra K.Eckersley, Marrickville, July 14.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Is there a more odious phrase than one politician accusing another of "playing politics"?

Chris Mangan, Bracken Ridge (Qld), July 14.

Cultural lessons

Garth Clarke (Letters, July 13), one good anecdote calls for another. During my 10 years at a Christian Brothers college, there were two occasions when we had time off school.

On July 20, 1969, we were sent home at lunch so we could watch Neil Armstrong's "one small step" on TV. And on March 8, 1971, the teachers installed a TV for the last two hours of the day so we could watch Joe Frazier fight Muhammad Ali. The brothers always did have their educational priorities right.

Peter Watkins, Bonython (ACT), July 14.

The real sharks

John Chapman (Letters, July 14) thinks it's OK to impose the death penalty on sharks only if they have the audacity to jump onto the beach and attack someone. Yet if a human did it they would only get imprisoned.

The sharks I have seen on the foreshore all own vans and sell ice-cream.

Page Tools

Send your letters to:letters@smh.com.au
Fax: +61 (0)2 9282 3492
Snailmail: GPO Box 3771, Sydney 2001All letters and email (no attachments) to the Herald must carry the sender's home address and day and evening phone numbers for verification. Letter writers who would like receipt of their letters acknowledged should send a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words. By submitting your letter for publication, you agree that we may edit the letter for legal, space or other reasonable reasons and may, after publication in the newspaper, republish it on the Internet or in other media.